Judge Refuses To Perform Gay Marriage

[revelarts]

Northwest Ohio Judge Refuses To Perform Gay Marriage
By Kim Palmer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/allen-mcconnell-gay-marriage_n_7753738.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0000001 6

CLEVELAND, July 8 (Reuters) - A northwest Ohio municipal judge assigned to a courtroom where civil marriages are performed refused to marry two women less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, the judge's office confirmed on Wednesday.

Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell was on a three-week rotation assigned to perform civil ceremonies on Monday when Carolyn Wilson and her partner asked to be married. McConnell acknowledged the decision in a Wednesday statement.

"On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment," he said. "The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best."

On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, handing a historic triumph to the gay rights movement.

Toledo Municipal Court judges performed 98 marriages in 2014 and 49 marriages so far this year. Deputy court administrator Michael Zenk said the request by the women on Monday was the first time the court was asked to perform a same-sex marriage.

After McConnell refused, Judge William Connelly, Jr. performed the ceremony for the women, Zenk said.

"It is the policy of the court to accommodate wedding requests and we will continue to do that for both opposite and same-sex marriage," Zenk said.

McConnell said he will continue to perform "traditional marriages" and is, "seeking an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio" about whether he can "opt out of the rotation" that would have him perform civil marriages.

Wilson told local newspaper the Toledo Blade her wife does not want to be named publicly for fear of discrimination at work. (Reporting by Kim Palmer in Cleveland, Editing by Ben Klayman and Lisa Lambert


God Bless him.

So here we have a ANOTHER clear case of the state and homosexuals wanting to FORCE religious people to participate in their activities.

If they are rational the Ohio courts will understand that an ACCOMMODATION must be made for religious reasons. a Religious exception. no homosexuals will be denied and no Christians forced. a win win right?

But no i suspect that homosexual activist will have none of that. They have NO concept that religion has merit here. Christians must conform or face severe consequences. There's NO allowance for public difference of opinion. No valid reason other than bigotry and "discrimination" in there minds.

No such thing as religious or conscientious objection here to get out of PERFORMING or HELPING in a homosexual wedding. do it or ELSE. Recognize it as EQUAL or else. Your religion be D@mned.

Will be interesting to see out it plays out.

[Perianne]

Northwest Ohio Judge Refuses To Perform Gay Marriage
By Kim Palmer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/allen-mcconnell-gay-marriage_n_7753738.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0000001 6



God Bless him.

So here we have a ANOTHER clear case of the state and homosexuals wanting to FORCE religious people to participate in their activities.

If they are rational the Ohio courts will understand that an ACCOMMODATION must be made for religious reasons. a Religious exception. no homosexuals will be denied and no Christians forced. a win win right?

But no i suspect that homosexual activist will have none of that. They have NO concept that religion has merit here. Christians must conform or face severe consequences. There's NO allowance for public difference of opinion. No valid reason other than bigotry and "discrimination" in there minds.

No such thing as religious or conscientious objection here to get out of PERFORMING or HELPING in a homosexual wedding. do it or ELSE. Recognize it as EQUAL or else. Your religion be D@mned.

Will be interesting to see out it plays out.

Aren't homosexuals equal to the rest of us?

[revelarts]

Black judge, NAACP leader refuses to perform lesbian wedding, and libs go BERSERK
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/07/09/black-judge-naacp-leader-refuses-to-perform-lesbian-wedding-and-libs-go-berserk-222712#ixzz3fSWmYfsd


Activists such as Glenn Greenwald took to Twitter to call for the impeachment of Judge Allen McConnell after he released a statement on Wednesday explaining his decision to have the couple visit another judge for their wedding license.

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/07/09/black-judge-naacp-leader-refuses-to-perform-lesbian-wedding-and-libs-go-berserk-222712#ixzz3fSWHweLf


See tweets at link

[revelarts]

Aren't homosexuals equal to the rest of us?
yes "homosexuals" are equal human beings.
But the homosexual activity is sin and it cannot be sanctified by calling the relationship and activity marriage.

[red state]

Thus the reason why the left lie about homosexuality being a genetic trait and not a choice. In reality, THEY and WE are both correct to some degree and I've debated this for years to the confussion of the dim left. Homosexuality, like any other sin or perversion, is a CHOICE but each of us have genetic weaknesses characteristic of our individuality. A drunk, for instance, isn't necessarily born a drunk but has a genetic weakness that more readily enable him (or her) to become a drunk. The Bible says the we exit the womb speaking lies and their is no truth in us (save for the LORD). My weakness is anger (among other things) which is why I minored in what interested me and majored in what I'm good at. It is a fasinating subject and I'm glad that abnormal sexual behaviors were still classified as such during the time of my study.

Just because I may have a faulty gene that gives in to anger........doesn't mean I have to give in to anger.

[Kathianne]

He's going to have problems:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/allen-mcconnell-toledo-refuses-gay-marriage


Ohio Judge Refuses To Marry Same-Sex Couple ByKATHERINE KRUEGER (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/katherinekrueger)Published<time datetime="2015-07-08T18:54:42Z" pubdate="pubdate">JULY 8, 2015</time>
An Ohio judge refused to conduct a same-sex marriage in his court this week, the latest instance of local officials refusing marriages on religious grounds in the weeks after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide.

Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell, who was in the midst of a three-week stint performing civil ceremonies, refused to marry Carolyn Wilson and her partner (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/allen-mcconnell-gay-marriage_n_7753738.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0000001 6) on Monday.


“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” McConnell said in a statement. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”


The judge also said he’s asked the Ohio Supreme Court whether he can opt out of the rotation to avoid violating his religious beliefs.


A court administrator told Reuters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/allen-mcconnell-gay-marriage_n_7753738.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0000001 6) that Wilson and her partner’s wedding was the first same-sex ceremony the court had been asked to perform. The couple was married by another judge after McConnell refused.


An Alabama judge had stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wes-allen-probata-judges-alabama-marriage-licenses) after the Supreme Court ruling.

A number of clerks (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kentucky-clerks-no-marriage-for-you) in Kentucky have also refused to grant licenses to gay couples, citing religious belief in “traditional” marriages.

http://a2.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/kyqmw4mybrbl6jhdahzt.jpg

[Noir]

What the likely repercussions?
Is it a federal offence to deny civil liberties?

[jimnyc]

What the likely repercussions?
Is it a federal offence to deny civil liberties?

Various - worst being removed from the bench.

[Kathianne]

What the likely repercussions?
Is it a federal offence to deny civil liberties?


It seems that the federal government is giving time for emotions to cool down on the SCOTUS ruling. We'll see, but there are real issues about 1st amendment rights to religious beliefs.

[Noir]

but there are real issues about 1st amendment rights to religious beliefs.

Isn't granting of a marriage license a civil issue, not a religious one (i.e. A judge could refuse to take part in a marriage ceremony, but not in the granting of a license).

My knowledge of actual marriage practice is vague, and indeed it may be different in the states as to here, but surly the civil and religious aspects of marriage are disconnected.

[Kathianne]

Isn't granting of a margrave licence a civil issue, not a religious one (i.e. A judge could refuse to take part in a marriage ceremony, but not in the granting of a licence).

My knowledge of actual marriage practice is vague, and indeed it may be different in the states as to here, but surly the civil and religious aspects of marriage are disconnected.

Back to the original problem of definition of marriage.

My solution is to take all government out of the marriage business. All are 'civil unions' for tax and civil matters.

[Noir]

Back to the original problem of definition of marriage.

My solution is to take all government out of the marriage business. All are 'civil unions' for tax and civil matters.

I don't see clearly what issue that solves, as the government then have to define 'civil union' etc.

[Kathianne]

I don't see clearly what issue that solves, as the government then have to define 'civil union' etc.
Don't call it 'marriage.' The religious front can deal with that.

[Noir]

Don't call it 'marriage.' The religious front can deal with that.

Grief and gravy, religious egos so weak.

[jimnyc]

Isn't granting of a marriage license a civil issue, not a religious one (i.e. A judge could refuse to take part in a marriage ceremony, but not in the granting of a license).

My knowledge of actual marriage practice is vague, and indeed it may be different in the states as to here, but surly the civil and religious aspects of marriage are disconnected.

I believe you can get a license from a clerk - but the judge was being asked to actually conduct the marriage.

[Kathianne]

Grief and gravy, religious egos so weak.
Tell that to the gays. :laugh2:

[Noir]

I believe you can get a license from a clerk - but the judge was being asked to actually conduct the marriage.

If that's the case then IMO the more important parts of the story are -

An Alabama judge had stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wes-allen-probata-judges-alabama-marriage-licenses) after the Supreme Court ruling.

A number of clerks (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kentucky-clerks-no-marriage-for-you) in Kentucky have also refused to grant licenses to gay couples, citing religious belief in “traditional” marriages.

[jimnyc]

If that's the case then IMO the more important parts of the story are -
[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Can't :poke: at one of them, so move onto the next. :)

You don't like religion, so it's understandable that you don't get folks standing up for their religious beliefs. Just be happy knowing that they'll either be forced to, or likely lose their jobs.

Think about this - do you like being forced religious stuff at schools where you are at? Well, some don't like it the opposite way.

[sundaydriver]

A number of clerks (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kentucky-clerks-no-marriage-for-you) in Kentucky have also refused to grant licenses to gay couples, citing religious belief in “traditional” marriages.

I think you must already be related to get a marriage license in Kentucky.:rolleyes:

[Noir]

Can't :poke: at one of them, so move onto the next. :)

If the 'headline' story judge is only stepping back from doing an optional religious ceremony, I have little to quarrel with. But the story itself also cites cases of officials denying civil rights, which is a concern, would you not agree?


You don't like religion, so it's understandable that you don't get folks standing up for their religious beliefs. Just be happy knowing that they'll either be forced to, or likely lose their jobs.

Think about this - do you like being forced religious stuff at schools where you are at? Well, some don't like it the opposite way.

Folks can stand up for whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they have, but once they start denying other people civil liberties because of their personal beliefs...

[jimnyc]

If the 'headline' story judge is only stepping back from doing an optional religious ceremony, I have little to quarrel with. But the story itself also cites cases of officials denying civil rights, which is a concern, would you not agree?



Folks can stand up for whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they have, but once they start denying other people civil liberties because of their personal beliefs...

And do you understand that all of these folks feel THEIR freedoms are being ignored? The knife cuts 2 ways.

Is it a concern? Of course it is. It's now legal for gay marriages, so unfortunately they do have the right to get these licenses and get married. I have no issue if their job is to simply hand someone a legal paper/form. But if they are asked to approve/sign or anything like that... nope.

If me? I find a new job or ask to be transferred where I don't have to compromise my own beliefs. I fully understand the law, and I understand that such denials can lead to dismissal.

[fj1200]

He's going to have problems:

He doesn't get the luxury to avoid his duty though.


Back to the original problem of definition of marriage.

My solution is to take all government out of the marriage business. All are 'civil unions' for tax and civil matters.

Do you think he would have presided over a "union"?

[jimnyc]

He doesn't get the luxury to avoid his duty though.



Do you think he would have presided over a "union"?

Likely, as his beliefs are probably against gay MARRIAGE. If civil unions were the way of the day, religious folks would still get married at churches, while others in civil unions, while paperwork would be submitted for the tax/benefit reasons.

[revelarts]

the judge has rights too.
religious accommodation rights have been on the books longer than 2-weeks.

from The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Quote:

<tbody>
What You Should Know About Workplace Religious Accommodation
1. Are employers required to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees?

Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion....

3. What are some common religious accommodations sought in the workplace?

Applicants and employees may obtain exceptions to rules or policies in order to follow their religious beliefs or practices. Remember that employers may grant these accommodations for religious reasons but still refuse to grant them for secular reasons. Examples of common religious accommodations include:

an employee needs an exception to the company's dress and grooming code for a religious practice, e.g., Pentecostal Christian woman who does not wear pants or short skirts; a Muslim woman who wears a religious headscarf (hijab); or a Jewish man who wears a skullcap (yarmulke).
The EEOC has developed a technical assistance document "Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities" along with a fact sheet explaining these issues due to the frequency of their occurrence.

a Catholic employee needs a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday;
an atheist needs to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings;
a Christian pharmacy employee needs to be excused from filling birth control prescriptions , or a Jehovah's Witness seeks to change job tasks at a factory so that he will not have to work on producing war weapons;
an adherent to Native American spiritual beliefs needs unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony, or a Muslim employee needs a break schedule that will permit daily prayers at prescribed times;
an employee needs accommodation of a religious belief that working on his Sabbath is prohibited.....

</tbody>

WYSK: Workplace Religious Accommodation (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm)


so the homosexuals get there marriage and Christians don't HAVE TO preform it.

WIN WIN right?
or is there a problem with that?

[Kathianne]

Likely, as his beliefs are probably against gay MARRIAGE. If civil unions were the way of the day, religious folks would still get married at churches, while others in civil unions, while paperwork would be submitted for the tax/benefit reasons.

Yep, civil union could be done with filing the proper forms, no ceremony required. Same as filing birth certificate.

[revelarts]

Also.. seems it was OK for A homosexual judge to REFUSE to do ANY marriages AT ALL.
denying civil right correct?

Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies


Texas Judge Tonya Parker cannot legally marry a woman in her state, so she refuses to perform any marriage ceremonies until there is equality. She finds it "oxymoronic" to perform a ceremony that cannot be performed for her.
Parker, an openly gay judge, told a group at a Stonewall Democrats of Dallas meeting Tuesday that when she turns a couple away, she uses it as an opportunity to teach them a lesson about marriage equality.
"I don't perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality and until it does, I'm not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn't apply to another group of people," Parker said in a video of the Tuesday discussion. "And it's kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can't be performed for me, so I'm not going to do it."
A spokeswoman for the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct said the commission had no comment....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-texas-judge-refuses-perform-marriage-ceremonies/story?id=15784189

[revelarts]

we've got parallel threads on this. someone might want to merge them or not...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50600-Judge-Refuses-To-Perform-Gay-Marriage

[jimnyc]

Also.. seems it was OK for A homosexual judge to REFUSE to do ANY marriages AT ALL.
denying civil right correct?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-texas-judge-refuses-perform-marriage-ceremonies/story?id=15784189

Well this is interesting for sure. And that was 3 years ago... Gonna do quick search to see if anything changed...

I found the same as of 2014 as well. The only thing I can find that may separate her, is that she is not doing ANY marriages. And if allowed, then others should be allowed to do so as well, and it won't hurt others with religious beliefs!! Religious folks can get licenses still and go to churches. If the law allows her to stop all marriages, then they'll need to find alternatives for gay folks. Her decision to do this might backfire, and now set precedent for others? I dunno. Will be curious to see how this all plays out.

[jimnyc]

we've got parallel threads on this. someone might want to merge them or not...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50600-Judge-Refuses-To-Perform-Gay-Marriage

Done.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thus the reason why the left lie about homosexuality being a genetic trait and not a choice. In reality, THEY and WE are both correct to some degree and I've debated this for years to the confussion of the dim left. Homosexuality, like any other sin or perversion, is a CHOICE but each of us have genetic weaknesses characteristic of our individuality. A drunk, for instance, isn't necessarily born a drunk but has a genetic weakness that more readily enable him (or her) to become a drunk. The Bible says the we exit the womb speaking lies and their is no truth in us (save for the LORD). My weakness is anger (among other things) which is why I minored in what interested me and majored in what I'm good at. It is a fasinating subject and I'm glad that abnormal sexual behaviors were still classified as such during the time of my study.

Just because I may have a faulty gene that gives in to anger........doesn't mean I have to give in to anger.




Just because I may have a faulty gene that gives in to anger........doesn't mean I have to give in to anger.

Maybe its not faulty--the anger gene. Maybe its a bred in warrior spirit.
Of course it must be controlled and control failure is what makes it a negative!
If controlled it is a strong, strong positive. I myself have it in spades and learned to 99% control it.
However that process took me a few decades.. Never easy when you truly have it.-- as born with it in your makeup , as opposed to it being garnered due to drug and/or alcohol abuse, etc..
Trust me on this my friend--when controlled -you can turn it back on in a micro-second if its needed in a fight!!-Tyr

[indago]

I think you must already be related to get a marriage license in Kentucky.:rolleyes:

Yes, I believe it's a given...

[KarlMarx]

I believe that SCOTUS said that states must recognize these so called marriages but they don't have to perform them. The first amendment still protects religious freedoms.

I have to ask did this same sort of Nazi Stormtrooper mentality reign when women got the right to vote?

The homosexuals are becoming nothing more than jack booted fascist pigs willing to stomp on anyone who disagrees with them.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Abbey Marie]

I doubt this will truly hit the fan, until a Muslim judge refuses to marry gays. Then we will see how devoted the courts are to gay rights over religious freedoms.

[Noir]

Also.. seems it was OK for A homosexual judge to REFUSE to do ANY marriages AT ALL.
denying civil right correct?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-texas-judge-refuses-perform-marriage-ceremonies/story?id=15784189

Again it all comes down to whether they were refusing to carry out the ceremony, or filing legal paperwork.


I have no issue if their job is to simply hand someone a legal paper/form. But if they are asked to approve/sign or anything like that... nope.

Then you should not become a judicial clerk, and the judge involved should not be an administrator of justice, if he refuses to do his job. Religious rights do not trump civil rights.

[indago]

Again it all comes down to whether they were refusing to carry out the ceremony, or filing legal paperwork.



Then you should not become a judicial clerk, and the judge involved should not be an administrator of justice, if he refuses to do his job. Religious rights do not trump civil rights.

Then you believe that the practice of faggotry is a civil right?

[Jeff]

You know I just scanned through this thread ( we all know my opinion on fags and this subject ) so no need to carry on with it. But I was thinking, all the preachers I know when they marry a couple they meet with them and conduct a type of interview, nowhere is it written that said preacher has to marry y'all, so why now ? For years preachers and even Catholic priest have interviewed and even schooled folks before they could be married , so why should the fags get special treatments. ( AGAIN )

[red state]

Jeff, I scanned the entire thread (trying to catch up and all so bear with me) but did anything come out about our having to perform homosexual marriages? I know we all see it coming do the the fasicm of the left & homosexuals but I didn't know it was already on our doorstep.

Again, THEY will not stop till they have trampled on every right we have. We have Affirmative Action.......why not have a special tax since the homosexuals are so special and that way the gov. can provide THEM a special ceremony with a special homosexual administrator of the service?

Why can't more FAGS learn to bake a cake? Can't they open their own bakery?

I apprecieated the comment, TYR. You are correct; anger can be good & bad. I've controlled my well. When I lose it I control it well in being quite effective but that has meant me losing a job before. HA! That guy was a dishrag when I got through and I may have done worse had my friend who trains cops MMA not been there. I still haven't forgiven him for stepping in and hurting my armHA!

[Noir]

Then you believe that the practice of faggotry is a civil right?

Well, yes, someone has the right to practice their sexuality. Do you believe that people should not have the right to do so or something?

[Noir]

You know I just scanned through this thread ( we all know my opinion on fags and this subject ) so no need to carry on with it. But I was thinking, all the preachers I know when they marry a couple they meet with them and conduct a type of interview, nowhere is it written that said preacher has to marry y'all, so why now ? For years preachers and even Catholic priest have interviewed and even schooled folks before they could be married , so why should the fags get special treatments. ( AGAIN )

That would be regarding the religious ceremony of marriage, not the civil/legal aspect.

[indago]

Well, yes, someone has the right to practice their sexuality. Do you believe that people should not have the right to do so or something?

As an analogy, I believe that one has the right to thrust his fist forward, as long as it does not strike another in the nose; ergo: one has the right to do as he pleases, as long as it does not affect the rights of another. It is not a civil right to impose your wishes upon another. To enter upon a premises, and demand a service against the wishes of the proprietor, in my view, is not a civil right.

[Noir]

As an analogy, I believe that one has the right to thrust his fist forward, as long as it does not strike another in the nose; ergo: one has the right to do as he pleases, as long as it does not affect the rights of another. It is not a civil right to impose your wishes upon another. To enter upon a premises, and demand a service against the wishes of the proprietor, in my view, is not a civil right.

You you believe a heterosexual couple have a civil right to get married?

[Gunny]

Northwest Ohio Judge Refuses To Perform Gay Marriage
By Kim Palmer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/allen-mcconnell-gay-marriage_n_7753738.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0000001 6



God Bless him.

So here we have a ANOTHER clear case of the state and homosexuals wanting to FORCE religious people to participate in their activities.

If they are rational the Ohio courts will understand that an ACCOMMODATION must be made for religious reasons. a Religious exception. no homosexuals will be denied and no Christians forced. a win win right?

But no i suspect that homosexual activist will have none of that. They have NO concept that religion has merit here. Christians must conform or face severe consequences. There's NO allowance for public difference of opinion. No valid reason other than bigotry and "discrimination" in there minds.

No such thing as religious or conscientious objection here to get out of PERFORMING or HELPING in a homosexual wedding. do it or ELSE. Recognize it as EQUAL or else. Your religion be D@mned.

Will be interesting to see out it plays out.

Gee, I disagree with rev. There's something new. :laugh:

An elected state official has to perform the duties of the state. End of story. If you want to separate the state and religion, then you have to separate the state and religion. This guy's not a preacher, he's a lackey working for the government.

If he can't perform the state's requirements, I think Home Depot is hiring.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Again it all comes down to whether they were refusing to carry out the ceremony, or filing legal paperwork.



Then you should not become a judicial clerk, and the judge involved should not be an administrator of justice, if he refuses to do his job. Religious rights do not trump civil rights.



Religious rights do not trump civil rights.
Civil rights do not trump religious rights can also be stated. Yet you and others demand that they not only trump religious rights but that they conquer those religious rights. Stop pretending otherwise.. Thats the agenda obama and other leftists pursue now! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Religious rights do not trump civil rights.

And gay marriage does not trump the 1st amendment, and Kennedy addressed that in his majority decision.:

"The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths," Kennedy said.

"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."

[Gunny]

Civil rights do not trump religious rights can also be stated. Yet you and others demand that they not only trump religious rights but that they conquer those religious rights. Stop pretending otherwise.. Thats the agenda obama and other leftists pursue now! -Tyr

Depends. There's a separation between church and state. From a factual standpoint, I disagree with judges decision.

At the same time, I agree the progressive leftwing assf*cks are trying to railroad the church. That slippery slope the left likes to claim doesn't exist is their damned ride.

[aboutime]

Question. Would someone, anyone reading this kindly, and honestly point me to WHERE the words Separation of Church and State appear in the U.S. Constitution??? I know the answer. But it seems far too many Americans have been convinced that sentence actually exists.Anyone care to correct me on that?